Michael Mann, a Pennsylvania researcher who’s been a target of climate-change skeptics, was cleared of wrongdoing by U.S. investigators in the flap surrounding e-mails hacked from a U.K. university.

Finding no “evidence of research misconduct,” the Arlington, Virginia-based National Science Foundation closed its inquiry into Mann, according to an Aug. 15 report from the inspector general for the U.S. agency. Pennsylvania State University, where Mann is a professor of meteorology, exonerated him in February of suppressing or falsifying data, deleting e- mails and misusing privileged information.

Climate-change doubters pointed to the stolen U.K. e-mails, which surfaced in blogs in 2009, as proof that researchers conspired to quash studies questioning the link between human activity and warming. Last week, Texas Governor Rick Perry, who is seeking the Republican nomination for president, renewed the assertion that scientists have “manipulated” data on climate change.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY! Humans are too small to affect the natural cycles of the weather, it is all in God's hands. There has been no warming since 1998! Drill, Baby, Drill!!! Frack, Jack, Frack!!! Fire up your big V-8s and race in the BLM lands--they are ours to ruin!!!Breed, breed, breed, overpopulation is a myth, the Earth can support 100 Billion!!!!There's plenty of water, the Earth is 70% covered with it!@!!! The moslems pose no threat, they are our friends!!!! It is only the extremists that are bad, and that includes environmental whackos!!! Obama's policies are great!!! Legalize all the illegals!!! Perry would make a great President!!! We need more growth!!!

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY! Humans are too small to affect the natural cycles of the weather, it is all in God's hands. There has been no warming since 1998! Drill, Baby, Drill!!! Frack, Jack, Frack!!! Fire up your big V-8s and race in the BLM lands--they are ours to ruin!!!Breed, breed, breed, overpopulation is a myth, the Earth can support 100 Billion!!!!There's plenty of water, the Earth is 70% covered with it!@!!! The moslems pose no threat, they are our friends!!!! It is only the extremists that are bad, and that includes environmental whackos!!! Obama's policies are great!!! Legalize all the illegals!!! Perry would make a great President!!! We need more growth!!!

I think that Climategate is used by only the irrational skeptics. In my opinion, Climategate really didn't "prove" anything, other than the fact that Ben Santer is not really a nice person.

However, the evidence is overwhelming that the current warming that we have seen is due to natural cycles. Human CO2 is significantly dwarfed to just albedo changes alone.

Here is what convinced me:

1) OLR is increasing.

The Outgoing Longwave Radiation, or (OLR) has been increasing at a steady rate of around 4.5 w/m^2 per decade. This is indicative of natural warming. Why? Because if the warming was Anthropogenic Greenhouse Warming, you would note an initial decrease in OLR, before Earth warms, and releases more OLR, so that the OLR can equilibriate to the amount of ISR reaching Earth's Surface. (No change in OLR.) However, with natural warming, you get more ISR reaching Earth's surface, which leads Earth to warm and release more and more OLR. (OLR Increase.)

2) Clouds are currently decreasing.

Clouds have decreased by roughly 4% since 1983. This has major implications for Earth's Energy Budget, because when all clouds are removed, you get approximately 17 w/m^2 added to Earth's Energy Budget.

The overall reflectance (albedo) of planet Earth is about 30 percent, meaning that about 30 percent of the incoming shortwave solar radiation is radiated back to space. If all clouds were removed, the global albedo would decrease to about 15 percent, and the amount of shortwave energy available for warming the planet surface would increase from 239 W/m2 to 288 W/m2 (Hartmann 1994). However, the longwave radiation would also be affected, with 266 W/m2 being emitted to space, compared to the present 234 W/m2 (Hartmann 1994). The net effect of removing all clouds would therefore still be an increase in net radiation of about 17 W/m2. So the global cloud cover has a clear overall cooling effect on the planet, even though the net effect of high and low clouds are opposite (see figure above). This is not a pure theoretical consideration, but is demonstrated by observations (see diagram below).

The latest results from ERBE indicate that in the global mean, clouds reduce the radiative heating of the planet. This cooling is a function of season and ranges from approximately -13 to -21 Wm-2. While these values may seem small, they should be compared with the 4 Wm-2 heating predicted by a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration.

If all clouds were to be removed, 13-21 w/m^2 would be added to Earth's Energy Budget, according to ERBE, which is consistent with Hartmann's 17 w/m^2.

3) Earthshine Data

Scientists Professor Phil Goode and Dr. Enric Palle used a method known as "earthshine" to calculate the changing albedo of Earth.

Here are their results:

Their study showed that albedo over a 21 year period contributed 7 w/m^2 to Earth's Energy Budget in a 21 year timeframe. Comparitively, this is almost triple the GHG forcing of 2.4 w/m^2 since 1790, cited by the IPCC, which is shown in red.

4) The radiative patterns recorded from the NASA TERRA satellite show low climate sensitivity.

Quote:

The plot shows two types of patterns; linear striations and random spiral patterns. The usual interpretation of this data by climate modelers would be to use the best fit line which shows a slope of 0.7 W/m2/C, which is a very high positive feedback. The actual feedback should be determined by the slope of the linear striations, which is 8 W/m2/C, which is a very high negative feedback. A value of 3.3 W/m2/C corresponds to no feedback. (No feedback means if the temperature of the atmosphere were uniformly increased by 1 C and nothing else changed, the top of the atmosphere would radiate 3.3 W/m2 more radiation to space.) The feedback is observed to occur on shorter time scales in response to evaporation and precipitation events, which are superimposed upon a more slowly varying background of radiative imbalance due to natural fluctuation in cloud cover changing the rate of solar heating Earth’s surface.

The satellite data shows that over short time scales, clouds provide strong negative feedbacks. Spencer also analyzed the radiative flux and temperature variations from climate models used by the IPCC to determine if the short term negative feedback found in the satellite data is also applicable to long term feedback. He found that the short term linear striations and the spiral patterns show up all 18 climate models that he analyzed. Spencer says the slopes of the linear striations do indeed correspond to the long term feedbacks diagnosed from these models’ response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing. This strongly suggests that the short term negative feedback shown in satellite data also applies to long term global climate change.

The feedback estimate for a hypothetical doubling of carbon dioxide, using the Terra satellite data gives a climate sensitivity of 0.46 C.

5) Climate Sensitivity from ERBE

Quote:

In the following graph, each climate model's predicted climate sensitivity is plotted versus the slope of the correlations shown above, which correspond to the amount of the temperature feedback. The curved black line shows the relation between the feedback and the climate sensitivity to doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The large errors in the feedback factors cause a large range of predicted equilibrium climate sensitivities. The model results show the climate sensitivity could range from 1.3 degrees to over 5 degrees Celsius considering the range of feedback factors. But the ERBE satellite data tells a completely different story. It shows a climate sensitivity of 0.4 to 0.5 degrees Celsius. This small temperature change would not cause any problem and it there is no reason to be concerned about our CO2 emissions. See here or here for further information.

There is even more evidence than this, but this is just a snippit of all of the evidence that natural cycles contributed to almost all of the warming.

So, the notion that Climate Change is driven by natural cycles, is no conspiracy. It is driven by facts. Something that CAGW will never have.

BTW, Wayne, I'm in the process of replying to your post on the other thread- I'm gradually saving it via a word document!

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

Snowy, I can't believe you're using data only going back to the late 70's/early 80's to convince yourself of something, much less to rule something out entirely.

It has a built in safety .... if the trend in such a short period is inconclusive the defense jumps to we need to wait until we actually see the trend, which is the whole design for the denialist movement. Of course, some have been known to just look at a graph and pronounce a trend as being significant without considering whether statistical analysis agrees or not.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Snowy, I can't believe you're using data only going back to the late 70's/early 80's to convince yourself of something, much less to rule something out entirely.

It has a built in safety .... if the trend in such a short period is inconclusive the defense jumps to we need to wait until we actually see the trend, which is the whole design for the denialist movement. Of course, some have been known to just look at a graph and pronounce a trend as being significant without considering whether statistical analysis agrees or not.

The links you have provided are completely irrelevant to everything that I posted here. The fact that you do not recognize this, indicates that you are in fact the amateur, and not I.

quote[ However, the evidence is overwhelming that the current warming that we have seen is due to natural cycles. Human CO2 is significantly dwarfed to just albedo changes alone. ]quotehttp://www.skepticalscience.com/empiric ... effect.htm FALSE! They are in there, among the 169 BS arguments people like you use. I studied meteorology from 1966-71, but the big thing is I have experienced it for my 62 years and have seen and felt the climate change.

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

Snowy, I can't believe you're using data only going back to the late 70's/early 80's to convince yourself of something, much less to rule something out entirely.

Isn't that the time when the late-20th Century warming began, and many CAGW scientists claim that natural cycles could not have explained the late-20th Century Global Warming?

So long as your claims are not supported statistically, it really doesn't matter when it started or how big a slice of time you reference. But don't fret. Scientific and engineering curricula are generally pretty lax when it comes to statistics.

They are in there, among the 169 BS arguments people like you use. I studied meteorology from 1966-71, but the big thing is I have experienced it for my 62 years and have seen and felt the climate change.

Your area may have seen localized climate change in the past, but that is not liable to say that you can extend that to an entire globe, and declare it Catastrophic Climate Change.

So long as your claims are not supported statistically, it really doesn't matter when it started or how big a slice of time you reference. But don't fret. Scientific and engineering curricula are generally pretty lax when it comes to statistics.

So you're saying that as long as a drop in albedo is NOT statistically significant that it can not cause climate change? But a .01% increase in CO2 can?

Albedo decreased roughly 7-8% according to the Earthshine data from 1983-2004 and added 7 w/m^2 to Earth's Energy Budget according to their calculations. This is significantly more than the IPCC's figure of 1.4 w/m^2 being added to Earth's Energy Budget since 1790 by CO2.

And since albedo has been increasing in recent years, temperatures have not increased any further.